Author
Topic: The Invention of Hugo Cabret (Read 21365 times)

This movie was great.I know that people say it's the "Best use of 3-D in any movie since Avatar", and I'm not going to disagree. The flashy stuff mostly comes right in the first 15 minutes and after that its mostly a subtle inclusion.The acting was good on all fronts, and I found Asa Butterfield believable, which was most important.The only negatives I can think of is there was A LOT of pregnant pause when the audience was waiting for characters to say something. It was like "uh-huh AND..." which was not fun to have to experience. There was also plenty of ADR at certain points where the film could have sounded more natural, but I'm not really going to get into that.

What I liked most about this film, even though it shifted focus, was that it was about not giving up on your dreams but made in a way that adults could relate to. The flashbacks with Melies showed all his sets and whatnot in color, and though I didn't believe that at the time they would spend money to color up these old costumes, you knew that the film critic as a child saw them in color in his imagination.

This film looked great, even with all the CGI, and mostly I'm just glad the whole thing wasn't "here's a Kid in a Train Station with a Robot getting chased around by Borat"

I didn't believe that at the time they would spend money to color up these old costumes, you knew that the film critic as a child saw them in color in his imagination.

so you think that because films were made in black and white that every costume ever used in a film back then was actually devoid of all colour?

isn't it possible that to get different shades of greys it was necessary to use colour costumes anyway, and not to mention that costumes are by default made of material that USUALLY comes with a colour already.. i mean, not every cloth material in the world is white, unless they're using bedsheets to make every costume..

i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.

i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.

Where's the evidence?

Personally, not knowing much about fashion; i assume that color has been taken to extravagant levels throughout many of the previous centuries.

With that being said, Hollywood has always been about the appearance of being extravagant and larger than life. We all know that if you want to keep that myth alive you have to appear that way in front of the lens and when the camera shuts off.

there are worthwhile moments and scorsese in film history and preservation propaganda mode is fine but fuck i can't understand what all the gushing is over. if scorsese expressing his love of cinema is coming across as something new in this film then either everyone in the world has never seen one of his films or no one paid much attention. is it because it's more plainly stated that it's held in such focused regard with hugo?

everything in this film that isn't immediately centered around george melies/movies is crap, an excuse for a plot to legitimize an essay on the importance of film history that's at the heart of this movie for broader audiences. literally everything outside of that feels like an afterthought. themes of maintaining dreams and finding purpose in life are conveyed so tepidly they might as well not have been there. the screenplay seems to be mostly at fault since scorsese appears to be firing on all cylinders aesthetically, though i found the 3d to be distracting and mostly superfluous (the clock pendulum being the worst offender.) as gorgeous (but ever so plastic) as this movie tends to be i was uninvolved and uninterested for most of its running time.

maybe i need to see this again but as of now, i'm disconcerted and confused as to why this movie is so beloved.

I liked the film. What's most amazing about it is what's already been mentioned: that Scorsese seems to have tricked the studio into giving him $170 million to make a movie about the early days of film making disguised as a Holiday children's adventure. I do like how Scorsese used the process of 3D to mirror Melies pioneering work in special effects. I thought that worked quite well, and totally understand why he chose this subject for experimentation in 3D.

still say it's a gimmick and not the future of cinema, but that was said about talkies too I guess.

There was one sublime moment of 3D in the film, when Sasha Baron Cohen caught Hugo and Hit-Girl together, and as he's questioning the boy, he's gradually leaning down closer to him, and the way he seems to be slowly emerging from the screen and hanging over the audience does an amazing job of reflecting the intimidation that Hugo feels in that moment. Beyond that, it's still gimmicky and unnecessary. The movie was good, though. Very sweet, very moving. I would call it Scorcese's best film since Casino.

I didn't believe that at the time they would spend money to color up these old costumes, you knew that the film critic as a child saw them in color in his imagination.

so you think that because films were made in black and white that every costume ever used in a film back then was actually devoid of all colour?

isn't it possible that to get different shades of greys it was necessary to use colour costumes anyway, and not to mention that costumes are by default made of material that USUALLY comes with a colour already.. i mean, not every cloth material in the world is white, unless they're using bedsheets to make every costume..

i'm pretty sure colour always existed on the other side of the lens, if not yet on ours.

I'm just saying the production probably didn't have to spend money to color the giant lobster costumes red back then. maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

I'm just saying the production probably didn't have to spend money to color the giant lobster costumes red back then. maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

I still don't think you understand what everyone is saying. What color did you think that Lobster costume originally was? They probably got to pick what colors they were using in the first place so why not just go with the color that you want the grey to represent the closest?

I understand, that's just my idea of something that was possibly put in as a flourish. I'm not saying it was or wasn't made to be a certain color, and at this point, I don't get why anyone would think I'm not understanding of choices made in the production of films. Even the blood in "Psycho" was chocolate syrup. Look back, and in my review I said "I didn't believe", which is just an opinion, not a matter of fact. (also, in this film, didn't Helen McCrory's character say that they would sometimes color the film by hand?) What does this even have to do with this thread as a whole? I've been coming here for years & stating opinions and all the sudden people are trying to explain "color existed before it did in film" and that's not even contradictory to what I stated in the first place. In fact, I had a discussion with a friend just tonite who said that even when silent films were being made that the directors would make the costumes and sets and decorate them in the colors that they would be in actual life because their color would appear as different shades of grey on the film. Didn't really consider that possibility while watching the movie though. So sure, it may be something I had misconceptions about, but it doesn't mean I thought the world was "devoid of all color". Think about it though: if you were producing a black & white film yourself, and you had to make a costume out of paper mache that was going to represent a light color, would you spend money on paint to get it all green or red or purple or orange or whatever or just keep it that weird shade of off-white and save a couple bucks?

Anyways, done debating this. I'd like to know what more people thought of the movie and what made it special to them. If you care to keep on making a debate about a small detail in my description involving my feelings on the film and consider this a deflection, go ahead. If you actually just want to talk about the film, that's what the thread's about, no? So yeah. You can do that too.

I thought that shot of SBC hovering over us was a fantastic use of 3D. Even better than that opening "hey, we need to justify our use of 3D sequence." The 3D was done well, though not integral to watching the movie.

Film buffs will appreciate this film, though I'm not sure who else will. I saw it with a friend who thought it was just okay, while I liked it a lot. Melies' flashback was particularly moving.

TMWWT is irrelevant to the discussion. It looks like some color correction has already been done to those images, and it was likely designed and shot in such a away that the film would retain its monochromatic aesthetic even if the distributor ultimately balked at a b&w release.

I won't pretend to know the intricate details of pre-color film production, but I've got to imagine that budgetary concerns on some productions didn't necessarily allow for colorful props or costumes since they knew the color wouldn't actually be seen on the screen. Surely filmmakers then as now would be hesitant to waste money on something the audience wouldn't actually be aware of. But yes, if they had elaborate colors available for the same price, then of course it makes sense they'd use them to get as authentic a shade of grey as possible.

I am seeing this tonight. Tres excited.

Logged

Some people have a fear of snakes. That was a somewhat rational fear. And you could do something about it at least. Stay away from long grass and nature documentaries. Easy. Others have a fear of heights. That was manageable too. Avoid tall ladders. But how do you cope when your fear is something you can’t avoid? That you have no hope of staying away from? Being afraid of the sky, where are you going to go?

Talk about depressing. No, not Hugo, but the fact that 3 of the 5 trailers before the movie were rereleases of classic movies coming back to the theaters in 3D: Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars and Titanic. Unfortunately, I remain sure that 3D is in fact a fad and the sooner it dies a death, the better. As others have already pointed out, Scorsese does use 3D better than most thanks to including snow, dust and particles to add depth to the air (which was part of made Avatar's 3D so successful) and the way he moves his camera (and of course he moves his camera better than most anyway). In terms of spectacle, the shots which stick in my mind the most are the opening shots above Paris, along the platform and following Hugo through the walls - as well as the two close-ups which make both the Inspector and Melies appear larger than life. Those tracking shots would have probably looked equally awesome were they in 2D and the powerful close ups could have been just as impactful in IMAX. Maybe part of the problem with non-IMAX 3D is that you see the edge of the frame/screen. When the Inspector leers down over the audience, for example, it was certainly intimidating, but I was distracted by the fact that the top of his head was cut off, thereby ruining the effect of the 3D to an extent.

I don't know what Scorsese is trying to say with this movie. The Lumiere brothers thought (or said) that cinema was just a passing fad. Clearly that's not the case. Is Scorsese trying to make the statement here that 3D is not (as I've hopefully suggested) a passing fad either?

OVerall I liked the film, and I left the theatre with a sense of wonder as if I had fallen in love with film all over again, but I fail to recognize Hugo as a masterpiece. Don't get me wrong, the direction, the acting was all superb. Of course I love the cinephile elements to it (I had virtually not idea what to expect on that when I headed in) and seeing Melies' films rendered in viewmaster-style 3D was a magical experience. Maybe it's because I came to this with some expectations (or at least knowledge) that it would delve into the early history of cinema, but for whatever reason I really didn't feel that the film worked on a structural level at all. It just seemed too choppy and didn't really hold together for me. It would focus on the automaton for 20 mins, then Melies, etc. Yes, it was all ultimately connected, but watching it as a whole, I found it quite jarring how it moved from one aspect to another. The plummy British accents annoyed me too, IT'S SET IN FRANCE!!! In particular, SBC's voice constantly slipping back and forth between Inspector Clouseau and Russell Brand was quite annoying. When the kids were reading the book in the library and the film shifted into VO, it sounded and felt like we were watching a lecture. I wasn't particularly into the vignettes with the adults who spend their days in the station either. I get that those moments are supposed to be reminiscent of early cinema skits, but I didn't really feel they added a great deal.

All that said, however, my come away is that this is a good film. Not great, in my opinion, but I hope that it's a film that kids really truly love. They are after all the target audience, so for them it may be far more staggered by it than I was. I really hope so, because how many films nowadays really inspire a sense of magic or love of cinema? Incredibly few. In an age of digital effects and 3D, it's inspiring to feel such a rush from a film which pulls back the curtain on early cinema's magic and how groundbreaking effects of the time were achieved.

Of course, this being Scorsese, there were plenty of neat movie references hidden in there which I was able to appreciate even if I couldn't tell you what film exactly was being referenced.

To add further comment to the whole black and white argument, while I stand by my previous comments in the above post, I think it's important to note that when we see Tabard in flashback, the color is saturated to give it the feel of an early color photograph, yet when he enters Melies' studio he is met by a burst of color obviously meant to create a overwhelming brightness in comparison to the outside (non-filmmaking) world. Regardless of whether filmmakers would actually have painted paper mache lobster consumes in red for b&w movies back in the day or not, the colors in this scene are there because of production design to create a reaction in the Hugo audience more than anything else.

Logged

Some people have a fear of snakes. That was a somewhat rational fear. And you could do something about it at least. Stay away from long grass and nature documentaries. Easy. Others have a fear of heights. That was manageable too. Avoid tall ladders. But how do you cope when your fear is something you can’t avoid? That you have no hope of staying away from? Being afraid of the sky, where are you going to go?